Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  June 7, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 270. the nays are 146.
5:06 pm
the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members and staff will clear the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of 5885 no further amendments may be offered except pro forma amendments in the reading of
5:09 pm
the chair or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate and further amendments on this legislative day as follows. an amendment by mr. aderholt, an amendment en bloc consisting of amendments specified in this order not ordered disposed of, an amendment by ms. baldwin, limiting funds regarding coast guard offshore patrol cutter class of ships, an amendment by mr. barletta regarding section 642-a of the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act of 1996, an amendment by mrs. black limiting fund for the position of public advocates within the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, an amendment by mrs. blackburn regarding transportation and security administration employee training, an amendment by mrs. blackburn regarding
5:10 pm
transportation security administration teams used by any operation, an amendment by mr. brooks regarding section 133.21-b-1 of title 19, code of federal regulations, an amendment by mr. broun of georgia limiting funds for behavior detection officers or the spot program, an amendment by mr. broun of georgia regarding the strengthening partnership program, an amendment by ms. brown of florida regarding funding levels of u.s. customs and border protection, an amendment by mr. craff he can limiting funds -- craveek limiting funds, an amendment by mr. craceek regarding section 236-c of immigration and nationality
5:11 pm
act. an amendment by mr. crowley regarding india, an amendment by mr. culberson, an amendment by mr. davis of ill regarding cybersecurity, an amendment by mr. ellison regarding civil rights act of 1964, an amendment by mr. engel regarding light duty vehicles, an amendment by mr. flores regarding section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007. an amendment by mr. fortenberry limiting funds to restrict airline passengers from regarding. an amendment by mr. garrett limiting funds for vipertien servings. an amendment by mr. graves regarding professional unlawful presence, waivers, inadmissible for certain immediate relatives. an amendment by mr. ms. hochul regarding unclaimed clothing. an amendment by mr. holt limiting funds for aerial vehicles. an amendment by mr. holt
5:12 pm
regarding scanning systems. an amendment by mr. king of iowa regarding department of homeland security policy documents. an amendment by mr. king of iowa regarding executive order 13166. an amendment by mr. landry regarding aerial vehicles. an amendment by mr. -- by mr. loebsack limiting funds to ignite assistance obligated by fema. an amendment by mr. meehan regarding boko haram. an amendment by ms. moore under the immigration and nationality act. an amendment by mr. murphy of pennsylvania regarding air marshall service. an amendment by mr. -- air marshal service. an amendment by mr. pierluisi. an amendment by mr. polis
5:13 pm
regarding across the board reduction. an amendment by mr. price of georgia regarding immigration laws. an amendment by mr. ryan of ohio regarding visas. an amendment by mr. schweikert regarding the secured communities program. an amendment by mr. sullivan regarding section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act. an amendment by mr. thompson of california regarding deportation of certain aliens. an amendment by mr. turner of new york regarding surface transportation and security inspectors. an amendment by mr. walsh of illinois regarding software licenses. and at each further amendment may be offered only by the
5:14 pm
member named in this request or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand or a division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole and shall not be subject to an amendment except that the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee of appropriations or their respective designees each may offer one pro forma amendment for purpose of debate. and each further amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include -- and include extraneous material on h.r. 5855, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 667 and rule 18 the
5:15 pm
chair declares the house in the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5855, will the gentleman from new hampshire kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house of the committee in the whole house for further consideration of h.r. 5855 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013 and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose, an amendment offered by the gentleman from new york had been disposed and the bill had been read through page 99 line 17. pursuant to the order of the house today, no amendment may be offered except designated in the previous order, which is at the desk.
5:16 pm
for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. brown: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revised made available for departmental management and operations, departmental operations, office of the secretary and executive management and increasing the amount made available for u.s. customs and board protection, salaries and expenses by $ 28,400,000. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown, is recognized for five minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker, i'm going to offer and
5:17 pm
withdraw my amendment, but would like to continue to work with the committee to ensure our busiest airports have the customs and border protection they need to operate efficiently. it is clear from the amendment being offered and statements being made that we have a severe need for additional customs and border protection officers at every point of enti -- entry into the united states. airports are losing customers and alienating foreign customers because of the customs officers. many foreign tourists anxious to spend money are kept on the tarmac waiting for hours waiting to get processed. this is unacceptable and forcing tourists to travel to non-u.s. designations. this is also causing significant economic harm to many of our businesses. my home airport, orlando
5:18 pm
international airport, which is one of the busiest ones in the u.s. and number one tourist destination, which brings businesses from all over the world to visit our amazing amusement parks, universities and businesses is a prime example. since 2009, the airport traffic has grown more than 17% without any increase in customs and border protection personnel. waiting times exceed two and three hours, however this does not take into account the instances where passengers are required to remain on board the arriving aircraft parked on the ramp for an additional hour because of the line in the federal inspection station are too long to secure the efficient processing of them. president obama recognized this when he traveled to central florida to announce his executive order directly to the
5:19 pm
department of homeland security and the department of commerce to develop and implement a plan within 60 days to increase nonimmigrant visa processing capacities in china and brazil by 40% in the coming year. clearly, increasing visitation to the united states means jobs. yet without additional customs and border protection resources, orlando international airport will not be able to help the president achieve this goal. with just new 15 agents, the airport could accommodate additional flights that could generate 2,000 jobs and revenues of $360 million a year. that is a great return on our investment and the exactly the kind of shot in the arm that our region desperately needs. i know we aren't going to solve this problem today, but i want to encourage this committee and the department of homeland security to make every effort to ensure that a simple plan isn't
5:20 pm
costing thousands of jobs and millions in economic development. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back -- first of all, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama is seeking recognition? mr. aderholt: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: i move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from nebraska to important critical infrastructure issue and i yield to mr. terry. mr. terry: thank you for allowing me to express my concerns with proposals that would allow department of homeland security to impose cybersecurity regulations on private infrastructure that it deemed critical, quote, unquote. the administration wants to
5:21 pm
expand d.h.s.'s role for the purpose of subbing them to regulation but yet to take care of its own business on networks. i commend chairman aderholt for including language in this bill that requires executive branch agencies to get their act together and formulate expenditure plans to protect their own networks yet they can't even secure federal networks why in the world would we want to give them authority to regulate private-sector networks? i understand that d.h.s. currently works with the private sector on a voluntary basis, but that should be the extent of their involvement with critical infrastructure. as a member of the speaker's task force on cybersecurity as well as the co-chairman of the energy and commerce working group on cybersecurity, i have the very firm opinion that
5:22 pm
d.h.s. simply should not be allowed to regulate cyber critical infrastructure in the private sector. with respect to -- i have great respect for the chairman. i will not be offering my amendment. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this issue and again thank the chairman for his courtesy. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentleman for his comments. also, i'm a member of the speaker's task force on cybersecurity and understand the concerns that the gentleman has expressed this afternoon. as the gentleman noted, this bill focuses on federal network security by addressing the failure of the administration to protect its own networks. i thank the gentleman for his comments and i would be happy to work with him to try and address his concerns. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from alabama.
5:23 pm
mr. aderholt: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. but the gentleman may yield. mr. aderholt: yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: i want to thank the chairman and ranking member price for their hard work in writing a bill that keeps american families safe and prioritizes the border and law immigration law enforcement in a very tough budget environment. the federal air marshal service is under pressure to reduce costs and we are pursuing the coast efficient and mission effective air marshals to protect our skies. in my district, there are over 80 dedicated air marshals at the pittsburgh international airport, which is one of the 50 busiest. i'm concerned about the impact on costs and families if the
5:24 pm
federal air marshal service moves forward with a restructuring plan. i was going to offer an amendment to ensure no decision is made impacting the work force without conducting a cost benefit analysis that will explore all the potential options. i'm concerned that if the transportation and security administration proceeds with closing the pittsburgh office, any potential for savings would be dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to relocate them and their families. taxpayers pay nothing because it is less than two miles from the pittsburgh airport terminal. since air marshals do most of their work on the plane, they have to complete their paperwork elsewhere. moving the air marshals would increase costs and travel time. what is most important is the
5:25 pm
proximity of the work force to the airport. i asked them to review alternatives to closure or transfer from the pittsburgh field office and co-locating its ground office on the 911 airlift wing which is part of the military base. moving to the 911th would save them rent costs while represerving the operational mission to keep the skies safe. i have been assured that the director will look into alternatives to save costs and i would like to get the assurance of the chairman that will work with me in procuring that report. with that, i yield back and thank the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: who seeks recognition. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.
5:26 pm
the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contravention of any of the following, one, the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution of the united states. two, title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964 relating to non discrimination in federally-assisted programs. three, section 809 c-1 of the omnibus control and safe streets act relating to prohibition on discrimination. four, section 210401-a of the violent crime and law enforcement act of 1964 relating to unlawful police pattern or practice. the chair: pursuant to the order
5:27 pm
of the house today, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. >> i think i heard the clerk read it as 64 -- is it 64 or 94? mr. dicks: i want to make sure -- the chair: the amendment reads 1964. mr. dicks: thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, let me thank the chair and ranking member. i have an amendment here that i believe should enjoy the bipartisan support on all sides, america being the land of the free and home of the brave, where liberty and justice for all is how we live and recite those words every day when we come to the floor to say the pledge of allegiance. this is an amendment that says in america, law enforcement will respect the individual dignity of each person and operate on the basis of what would indicate
5:28 pm
criminal behavior, not race, not national origin, not religion. the leaders of four separate important caucuses in this congress have come together and are in support. that includes the congressional progressive caucus, congressional black caucus, congressional hispanic caucus and the congressional asia pacific island caucus and all say this is an important thing for all of us to support. everyone here in this body appreciates the hard work of d.h.s. employees and what they do on a daily basis to keep our country safe. we thank them and value the work that they do. and we appreciate all law enforcement especially when they put their lives for our safety. no one questions law enforcement in general. but you should know and there is no doubt and a.m. will evidence to demonstrate that there have been occasions in which individuals -- americans have
5:29 pm
been singled out and this is not what our nation is about. not the policy we should support. and therefore we should support an amendment that would say that discrimination has no place in the administration of law. occasionally reports of racial, ethnic and religious profiling do surface. we see them in the media and reports at the civil liberties union. i have reports, immigration enforcement, minor offenses with major consequences by the aclu and the human rights crisis which details how people have been singled out based on impermissible criteria and it's important to affirm in america after we have gone through to create liberty and justice for all that we have to do this principle today. too many americans who are simply going about their business have been discriminated against based solely on race,
5:30 pm
ethnicity and religion. it's wrong when it happens and not what our country is all about. this amendment simply says that it is contrary to our values. our amendment is straightforward and cites the constitution and existing anti-discrimination laws that no funds can be used to engage in racial, religious or ethnic profiling. this affirms core american values fought for in the civil rights movement and the civil war. nor is it partisan. in fact, there was a former bush administration official who said, quote, religious, racial or ethnic profiling is not good policing. that's not coming from me but an official from the bush administration and i quite agree with what he said. i urge my colleagues to stand with me and vote in favor of this important amendment.
5:31 pm
and i'll the balance of my time if i have any left. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: strike the last word. the chair: strike the last word. mr. aderholt: we would be happy to accept the amendment of the the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: move to strike the last word. . we think it's a good amendment, straightforward. achieve goals about which we ought to be able to agree. seeks to ensure that federal funding in the department of homeland security is not used by law enforcement to discriminate or to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. i commend the gentleman for authoring this amendment and urge an aye vote. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota.
5:32 pm
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment -- i have an amendment, i guess. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. is the gentleman's amendment at the desk? mr. graves: it should be at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. graves of missouri. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to finalize,
5:33 pm
implement, administer or enforce the rule entitled professional unlawful waivers of inadmissibility for certain relatives published by the department of homeland security -- 2002. , 20 the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, and a member opposed, each for fiche minutes. mr. graves: under current law, certain spouses, children and parents of u.s. citizens who are in this country illegally are not eligible to apply for a green card without first leaving the united states. these immediate relatives must travel abroad to obtain a green card from the department of state and request from the u.s. citizenship and immigration services a waiver to the three or 10-year ban that they received as a result of their unlawful presence. the proposed rule, the d.h.s.'s
5:34 pm
proposed rule would allow illegals with u.s. citizen relatives to stay in the united states while the federal government decides on their waiver request. specifically, the rule allows illegals to apply for and receive a provisional waiver to the three or 10-year ban that they received. the rule would simply allow them to remain in the u.s. illegally. i'm a strong proponent of enforcing our current immigration laws and this proposed rule allows illegals to circumvent federal statutes that govern admission. it makes it easier for illegals to stay in our country unlawfully. but the core impact of the proposed wule -- rule would be to encourage them to come to the u.s. illegally and all they need to do is apply for a waiver and then apply for a green card. they denies an application for provential waiver. i.c.e. will not prosecute that illegal for being in the u.s.
5:35 pm
unlawfully. in fact, i.c.e. announced in august of 2011 they would seek to dismiss the prosecution of cases of illegals who have applied for a green card. my amendment's going to block this proposed rule, and it's noted as the provential unlawful presence waiver and i think it's going to send a strong message to illegals who are in this country here illegally. you will not receive any form of benefits. and my amendment will enforce us to enforce all immigration laws, to stop giving breaks to those who have come to this country illegally. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields back -- mr. graves: i reserve but yield to chairman aderholt. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: if the gentleman will yield. i'd be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time?
5:36 pm
mr. graves: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would negate the recent rule that would prevent certain immediate relatives of u.s. citizens to apply for a provential unlawful presence waiver while still in the u.s. applications for the unlawful presence waiver could take months or even years to adjudicate. this change in processing, this new rule would permit u.s. citizens to remain ue -- united with their loved one and ensure that the u.s. citizen is not subjected to the harm, that is prolonged separation, that the waiver was meant to prevent. and to be clear, a pending or approved provential waiver will not provide interim benefits such as employment authorization. it will not provide lawful status. it will not stop the accrual of
5:37 pm
unlawful presence. it will not provide protection from removal. what it would do is eliminate the catch 22 faced by many american families who want to do the right thing. by having family members already eligible for the waiver come forward, come forward to adjust to legal status. under the current process they're penalized if they come forward. penalized by long-term separation from u.s. citizens who are immediate relatives and who depend on them for emotional and financial support. and by allowing the processing of waiver applications in the united states, the proposed rule would improve the efficiency of the process and would save taxpayer money. it's a much-needed change. it's a good rule. this change in processing is vitally needed. i see no reason to approve an
5:38 pm
amendment here today that would cancel out this beneficial change and i urge the amendment's defeat and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it's come to my attention that my amendment has a typo in it. it reads 2202 as the date. i'd ask unanimous consent that it be changed to 2012. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. with that i'd urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment as modified. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek
5:39 pm
recognition? mr. ryan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ryan of ohio. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa to a citizen subject, national or resident of brazil until the president of the united states determines and certifies to the congress that the government of brazil has amended its laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of brazils to other countries except the president may waive the application of this section on a case-by-case basis if the president determines and certifies to the congress that it is in the national interest of the united states to do so. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved. pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, is recognized for five minutes and a member opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: thank you, mr.
5:40 pm
chairman. i have a heartwrenching story to share with the congress and the american people of which i would like this amendment to help take some action. the egregious 2007 case of a decorated airman's murder in my congressional district, the state of ohio vs. claudia c. harrig. the wife of the deceased purchased a smith and wesson .357, learned how to use it, practiced in trumble county, ohio, and days later on march 12, 2007, she allegedly shot her husband, major carl harrig, twice in the back of the neck and once in the back of the head. and after being charged with aggravated murder by the court of common pleas of trumble county, ohio, mrs. harrig fled to her native country brazil which she's found sanctuary for
5:41 pm
five years. and the issue here, mr. chairman, is i have a family in my district that has not seen justice served. she went to brazil and which we have an extradition treaty, but the brazilian constitution says that brazilian citizens can't come back fought united states. but the issue -- come back to the united states. but the issue here in 1999 ms. harrig renounced her citizenship in brazil, became a citizen of the united states of america. so we have every right to ask the brazilians to send her back to the united states. she needs to have justice served. the harrig family needs to have justice deserved and carl harrig deserves that as he rests in peace. the brazilian government has on numerous occasions pledged to
5:42 pm
internally investigate this matter and investigate the possible renunsiation of mrs. harrig's citizenship on the following grounds and that in her sworn signed aft, she renounced her -- affidavit she renounced her brazilian citizenship in 1999 and that the brazilian government has stated that it may in fact honor harrig her renunsiation given the serious criminal nature. so this amendment, because i cannot seem to get the attention of the brazilian officials, after numerous letters, numerous attempts, working closely with the state department, can't get the bra sdemrillians attention. so this -- brazilians attention. so this amendment is we shall not use money to let the brazilians in the united states and allow them visas. 1.8 million visas are predicted to brazilians in 2013, and i hope that some of us on both sides of the aisle can say this man served our country, we have a woman who renounced her brazilian citizenship, came to
5:43 pm
the united states, killed this airman, and went back to bra sdemrill and now is -- brazil and now is in sanctuary there. and so i understand there may be some issues with this potential amendment here, but i will say, mr. chairman, that there are defense bills that will come to this floor and i will attempt in some way to get the brazilians' attention with the defense bill. there is foreign ops money, foreign aid that we use with brazil. i will come to this floor as many times as i need to to try to get the attention of the brazilian government to make sure that carl harrig and his family have the justice that they have earned, not just by being citizens of the united states, but also by serving this country so nobly for so many years. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from alabama -- mr. aderholt: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change
5:44 pm
existing law and it constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore would violate clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in part that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if change any existing law the amendment imposes an additional duties. i ask for a ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair's prepared to rule. the chair finds this amendment includes language conferring authority. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: at the end of the bill insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be
5:45 pm
used to provide funding for the public advocates. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house, the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. black and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee. mr. black: my amendment would prohibit funding at the immigration customs enforcement. the obama administration announced on february 7 this year that it will begin advocating on behalf of illegal aliens and advocates and communities that harbor illegals. when congress established the department of homeland security, it had immigrants in the immigration process but declined to create one for illegal immigrants. the president cannot to willfully ignore the laws and
5:46 pm
the inat the present time of congress. there are 10 million unauthorized illegals in this country and eight stops have adopted measures to address the illegal alien population in their states. this has come to pass because of the federal government's failure to secure the borders and enforce our immigration laws. nevertheless, the administration has not only used taxpayer dollars but now wants to use them to lobby for illegal aliens. this would deny the administration funding for the illegal advocate position at i.c.e. in contrary to what the department of homeland security has not created to act as a lobbying firm for illegal aliens. using taxpayer dollars to advocate on behalf of individuals who have come into our country is ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer dollars. the administration should be
5:47 pm
using this for its intend touchdown purpose to combat illegal immigrants. mr. aderholt: would the gentlelady yield? we will accept the gentlelady from tennessee's amendment. the position would be duplicative but we accept the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve her time? mr. black: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. i rise in opposition to this amendment. it would prohibit any funding for immigration and customs enforcement new public advocate, a crucial position formed this past february. the public advocate works with i.c.e.'s assistant director to respond to acute and pressing concerns from those going
5:48 pm
through the immigration process as well as family members and advocates. for example, the public advocate assists individuals and community members in resolving complaints and concerns with agency policies and operations related to those involving i.c.e. enforcement. it proposes changes in recommendations to fix community problems and concerns. without the public advocate, individuals proceeding through the immigration process would not have the same level of access to neutral, unbiased internal oversight, fulfilling the role of ombudsman for the public. since its inception on february 7, the public advocate has resolved serious complaints and assisted in increasing public engagement at all levels and acted as a good steward of the public dollar. by adopting this amendment, we would be saving i.c.e. less than $200,000 while severely impeding
5:49 pm
enforcement strategy. i can't imagine why we would want to cancel a position that is so effective at helping citizens, helping those who have a stake in all this, helping them penetrate the buyer buyer and get a resolution of -- penetrate the bureaucracy and get a resolution of complaints. why would we want to damage that or destroy it? that's what this amendment would do and i urge its rejection. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted.
5:50 pm
who seeks time. the gentleman from new york. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, it is the sense of congress that the department of homeland security should increase coordination with india on efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in the united states and india. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i planned to offer a bipartisan amendment along with my colleague, mr. royce of california, but i understand that this is subject to a point of order. i appreciate the chair and ranking member for supporting an opportunity to say a few words,
5:51 pm
since i will be asking for a vote on this amendment at this time. my amendment is about the importance of cooperation on homeland security between the united states and india. i believe that one of the most important decisions the united states has made in recent years is to strengthen our relationship with the democratic nation of india. and with that relationship, one of our most important decisions has been to cooperate and coordinate on matters dealing with homeland security. the fact is both the united states and india face such -- threats of terrorist attacks. the people of india never forget the tragedy of 9/11. many of those who were killed were of indian origin. and the people of the united states looked on in horror as terrorists carried out the brutal mumbai attacks. in those attacks, terrorists
5:52 pm
killed not only indians, but americans as well. 9/11 and mumbai remind us of why it is important that we work together with india. and the people of our two countries remind us why we must sustain and deepen that cooperation even further. so i want to urge the department of homeland security to continue their work, the important work that they are doing with regards to india to help ensure that both of our countries are safe from terrorist attacks. i also want to thank my colleague, mr. royce, who had planned to offer this amendment along with me. support in this area is bipartisan. and we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. i thank you, mr. chairman. and at this time, i will withdraw my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: you have to ask
5:53 pm
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. is there objection? seeing none, the amendment is withdrawn. the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. flores of texas, at the end of the bill before the short title add the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce section 526 of the energy independence and security act of 2007, public law 110-140, 42 u.s.c. 7142. the chair: pursuant to the order of the day, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. flores: i offer an amendment which addresses a misguided and restrictive federal regulation. section 526 prevents federal agencies from entering into
5:54 pm
contracts for the procurement of a fuel unless lights life cycle greenhouse gas emissions can be produced from petroleum sources. my amendment would stop the government from enforcing this ban on all agencies. the initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the defense department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to like wids jet fuel. this restriction was based on the opinion of some environmentalists that coal-based fuel might produce more greenhouse gas emissions than petroleum. we must ensure our military has adequate fuel resources and can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. unfortunately, section 526 ban on fuel choice now affects all federal agencies, not just the defense department. this is why i'm offering this amendment again today to the
5:55 pm
homeland security appropriations bill. federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple fix and that is to not restrict our fuel choices based on policy views and misguided regulations like those in section 526. with increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with the continued volatility and gin stability in the middle east, it is more important for our country to become more energy independent and to further develop all of our domestic energy resources including alternative fuels. placing limits on federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable precedent to set in regard to america's policy independence and international security. mr. chair, section 526 makes our nation more dependent on middle eastern oil. stopping the impact will help us to promote american energy and improve the american economy and create american jobs.
5:56 pm
now, in some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment will somehow prevent the federal government and our military from being able to produce and use alternative fuels. mr. chairman, this view point is categoryically falls. all my amendment is allow the federal government to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet their needs. i offered a similar amendment to the c.j.s. appropriations bill and it passed with bipartisan support. my similar amendments to the mil-con-v.a. also passed by voice votes. mr. conaway had language added to the defense authorization bill to prevent the defense department from this burdensome regulation. let's remember the following facts. it increases our reliance on middle eastern oil. it hurts our military readiness, our national security and our energy security and also prevents the potential increased use of some sources of safe,
5:57 pm
clean and efficient american oil and gas. it also increases the cost of american food and energy. it hurts american jobs and the american economy. last and certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment and i yield the balance of my time to mr. aderholt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: we would be happy to accept your amendment and be happy to work with you and yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve his time? mr. flores: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. if we are talking about common
5:58 pm
sense, the balance of common sense is against this amendment and with section 526 of the energy independence and security act. it is a straightforward provision intended simply to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of alternative fuels, whatever they may be, are at least no use than the fuels being used today. why shouldn't that burden of proof. it requires the federal government do know more harm when it comes to global climate change than it is already doing through the use of unconventional fuels. this is a commonsense provision. it escapes me why we would want to violate this or bypass this in this homeland security bill. i urge rejection and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. flores: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks but i do want to say this.
5:59 pm
my amendment does nothing to restrict the fuel choices of any federal agency and particular, the u.s. military. what it does do, for instance, is to allow the agency to procure fuel that is refined from canada once the keystone pipeline is built and once the fuels are refined. section 526 would restrict the use of those energy resources from our friendly neighbor and that is inappropriate and also causes our taxpayer' funds to be spent less wisely. with that. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, i have
6:00 pm
an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment 321 -- mr. king: amendment 321, designated 321. the chair: could the gentleman kindly send his amendment to the desk. . . the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: report offered by mr. king of iowa. insert the followings, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enforce executive order 13166, august 16, 2000, 65 federal register, 50121. the chair: the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
6:01 pm
gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment addresses the executive order 13166, that was an executive order that was issued in august of 2000 that directs our federal agencies to provide foreign language services to anyone who might seek to utilize -- engage with american government and when i say american government i do mean, mr. chairman, not just the federal government, also local government. the order directs federal fund recipients, meaning local government, to pay for the enormous cost of providing translation and interrupter services from their own funds. there's no federal reimbursement for this executive order. many of us support english as the official language. we understand there are billions that are spent in an effort to facilitate access to government, to people who do not have language skills. but i also understand it's
6:02 pm
impossible to meet all of those demands. as we watch the proliferation in this government, i would look at recently secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, released a memorandum detailing a d.h.s. language access plan which expands this executive order, 13166. so in summary, mr. chairman, this amendment simply says that no funds available under this act may be utilized to enforce executive order 13166 and i would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee from alabama. >> yes, i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment from iowa. and look -- we think this is a good idea. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i would then reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in opposition. mr. price: this is an amendment that it seems very clear would actually hamper d.h.s. operations, make us less safe. every component of d.h.s. has to
6:03 pm
communicate effectively in their daily operations in order to accomplish the mission of the department. how can i.c.e. enforce their immigration laws without being able to communicate meaningfully with foreign-born persons? this is a critical executive order. it was a top priority of the bush administration. there was a memorandum issued during the bush administration to the heads of all federal agencies that help facilitate the development of -- helped facilitate the development of limited english proficiency plans. to elaborate on this further, i'd like to yield to ms. chu, a leading member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. chu: if this amendment passed, it would have a negative effect on many immigrant, many of whom work hard and play by the rules and are here to legally -- but may not have the
6:04 pm
ability to speak english well. if this amendment passed innocent people could be harmed. foreign-born naturalized citizens would be at risk of deportation by i.c.e. not only that, detainees with serious, possibly life-threatening medical needs would be placed in great peril due to the inability to make medical requests and communicate effectively with medical service providers. if this amendment passed, lives could be lost because d.h.s. and fema would have difficulty issuing danger warnings and evacuation instructions as well as other critical notices in other languages during times of national emergency or catastrophe. if this amendment passed it would be harder for people to become citizens. that is because d.h.s. would be prevented from providing foreign language assistance to the elderly and disabled immigrants and refugees seeking to naturalize and become u.s. citizens. we want immigrants to be fully assimilated in american society.
6:05 pm
this amendment would stop this process and in fact potentially cause great harm to many who did not deserve. it i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. price: mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. to just quickly in closing, i would point out that we got along fine without this executive order up until the year 2000. and we'll get along fine without this executive order after the year 2000 -- 2012. the assimulation component of this doesn't take place if you facilitate foreign language speaking within government. 87% of americans support this policy, the policy of english as the official language. this is a component of it, there's nothing that prevents justice from utilizing language
6:06 pm
or emergency services from utilizing multiple languages to take care of the people. so i'd urge its adoption and i'd yield back and thank the chairman and i'd yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. the question -- for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i yield to my good friend from california, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. dicks. i will be brief. i just want to point out that the executive order itself indicates that only actions that would not be unduly burdensome should be engaged in. and the true scope of this amendment is really quite broad and adverse to the enforcement of the law. if you are i.c.e. and you have people in custody, those people in custody may not be speaking english and you may need to be able to communicate with them in a language other than english. the broad scope of this amendment could interfere with that. i would like to note also, as to the fema issue that my colleague from california referred to.
6:07 pm
we think of d.h.s. as immigration, my colleague from iowa has mentioned that frequently in our committee. but the department of homeland security is very broad. this could be the coast guard dealing with sailors in the caribbean sea, either people they believe are out to do mischief or people who are in distress, who may not speak english. this could be storm warnings, as has been mentioned. there are parts of florida where spanish is spoken, certainly in puerto rico spanish is spoken. and hurricanes come. you want to alert the entire population in a way that they can understand that danger is on its way. so i think this repeal of this presidential order which goes back almost 12 years, through
6:08 pm
many administrations, is ill-advised. it will make the country less safe and certainly it is an amendment that we should not support. and with that i would thank the gentleman and i would yield back to mr. dicks. mr. dicks: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from iowa has already yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. price: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. mr. king: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: i have a king amendment at the desk.
6:09 pm
322. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: did the gentleman send that amendment to the desk? mr. king: it was delivered to the desk. i can deliver another to the desk. it's on the way. thank you. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, a, none of the funds made available -- mr. king: i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection to dispensing of the reading? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the
6:10 pm
gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment, this second king amendment, addresses the morten memos and it would be the director of i.c.e. and he's quite well known for the memos that unfolded, that are now known as his memos. there are three of them and these memos compiled together bring about the effect of administrative amnesty. we'll remember that the president issued a policy, probably less than a year ago, when he essentially announced that they were going to look for ways that they didn't have to deport people that are already adjudicated for deportation. and at the time there were 300,000 people in the united states here illegally who had been adjudicated for deportation that were awaiting the final deportation order and the president's policy has echoed through janet nal -- napolitano and acted on by the i.c.e. director, issued three memos that gave administrative amnesty
6:11 pm
this way. memo number one was the most significant. and its components said, it said this, that aliens who pose a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, they might be deported. illegal aliens who have recently entered the u.s., they might be deported if you catch them at the border, so to speak, mr. chairman. the third exobet of that amendment number one was -- component of amendment number one was aliens that are fugitives might be deported and it really means the rest of them were not going to pay much -- we're not going to pay much attention to. memo number two discouraged i.c.e. agents from enforcing immigration laws against aliens who would qualify if the dream act had been enacted which is a pretty outrageous policy when you consider that it's multiple times been voted down in congress. memo number three discouraged i.c.e. agents from enforcing immigration laws against aliens who were victims or witnesses of crimes. that's the memos. this amendment, it prohibits the
6:12 pm
dollars from being used in this budget to enforce the memos and by the which have the memos here and i would ask unanimous consent to introduce these memos into the record, mr. chairman. the chair: the request will be covered by general leave. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i would then at this point urge its adoption and yield to the acting subcommittee chairman from texas. >> mr. chairman, the committee strongly supports the gentleman's amendment. it's entirely appropriate and vitally important that the congress defund the administration's unilateral attempt to bypass the laws of the united states and implement an amnesty program by executive order. it's unacceptable, it violates the law and as all of us in texas know, i had brought with me tonight for this debate, because it's so important to remember, that the first image on the first coin of the republic of mexico states, liberty and law. mr. culberson: it's a wonderful
6:13 pm
image. it points out quite correctly, the republic of mexico's first coin ever minted pointed out quite correctly that there can be no liberty without law enforcement. so we strongly support the gentleman's amendment. how vitally important it is that we restore law and order to the border, that we enforce the immigration laws of this country in a way that is evenhanded and fair and just, because only when the border is secure, only when the law -- immigration laws are enforced will we be able to actually have healthy commerce with mexico, will we be actually to have a guest worker program for mexico and allow people to come here legally to work so we can restore the back and forth trade that has made texas and all the border states so prosperous. so we strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption. mr. king: reclaiming my time, mr. chairman. i would point out that the morten memos in effect provide administrative amnesty potentially for millions and i would reserve the balance of my
6:14 pm
time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa reserves. mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to enforce memos, internal i.c.e. memos, on civil immigration enforcement priorities and for prosecutorial discretion. now, our friend from texas rightly talks about the importance of the law enforcement and i would just ask colleagues, is there any law enforcement agency in the land that does not set priorities? every law enforcement agency set priorities. they have to make the most effective use of limited resources. no law enforcement agency can go after every violation indiscriminately. every law enforcement agency has to prioritize its resources, to decide what's most important, what's most protective of the
6:15 pm
public safety. and go after the perpetrators that would do us the most harm. that's about as basic as it gets. in a world with limited resources, it's dangerous and irresponsible not to prioritize the detention and deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security. why would we want i.c.e. to spend as much time and energy going after innocent kids in college who were brought to this country by their parents as it spends going after known dangerous criminals? why would we want i.c.e. to focus on the detention and deportation of the spouses of u.s. citizens serving in our military? rather than on people who pose a threat to national security? the answer is we would not want them to do such reckless and indiscriminate things. we want them to set priorities and that's exactly what the morten memos are about. now, i am happy to yield to the chairwoman of the immigration
6:16 pm
subcommittee, judiciary subcommittee, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: i wish i were the chairwoman. mr. price: the ranking member. ms. lofgren: i would just in support of congressman price's comments, it is true that every law enforcement agency in the land makes priorities for enforcement. . you are going to go after the dangerous gang member before you go after somebody who is double parked or jaywalking. that is what police do all over the united states. and what these memos do is to put some order into who we are going after first. it's important to note that in all of the memos, there is a statement that this does not create any right for a person who is here without their proper papers. it is merely a set of priorities. i would note also that these memos are not new. prosecutorial discretion memos have been in effect since 1976. and i recall in 1999, i was a
6:17 pm
member of the judiciary committee and then chairman henry hyde, along with now chairman lamar smith, asked the department of homeland security -- actually, the immigration service at the time, to set priorities and here's what they said. the letter expressed concern about cases of apparent hardship, such as removal proceedings against legal permanent residents who came to the united states when they were very young many years ago, maybe committed a single criminal crime at the lower end of the spectrum, who have always been law-abiding and said to the i.n.s. that they should exercise discretion more regularly. that was done by the clinton administration, the bush administration, and now the obama administration. to suggest that deimportanttations are not occurring is extremely misleading, because, in fact, there have been more
6:18 pm
deportations during the obama administration per year than at any time in the nation's history. d.h.s. has removed over 779,000 individuals in deimportanttation proceedings, 18% increase. however, there is a limit to the number who can be deported per year. surely, we would all agree that going after criminals and terrorists is a higher priority than going after grandma or little kids. and i would yield back to the gentleman. mr. price: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i would inquire as to how much time i have remaininging? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. king: i would make the
6:19 pm
point, i listened to the discussion about something that we all know around is that prosecutorial discretion and we don't have the resources to prosecute every law breaker and we know law enforcement has to use that discretion on those resources. this is the president's policy, this is the president's policy of administrative amnesty that is implemented from the white house through janet napolitano and director morten, which said, we don't want to enforce the law. we want to have comprehensive reform and we know that is amnesty and bringing it in the same way they are trying to implement cap and tried through e.p.a. regulations. they have a responsibility to enforce the law. it says in article 2 in the constitution, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this constitution doesn't give an exemption or enforce the ones you like or don't than force the ones you don't like. and i urge its adoption.
6:20 pm
the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. price: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i would like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray. mr. bilbray: we heard the words from law enforcement, i don't make the laws, i enforce it. the administration is now saying, i don't like the laws and won't enforce them in this category. it would be equitable to an officer saying i'm not going to enforce any drug laws. i want to wait until i see a
6:21 pm
bank robber. the fact is that the executive branch is trying to legislate from the white house and violate the separations clause by using what is basically a pocket veto after the time limit that is described by law. and that pocket veto is not only wrong, but unconstitutional. and i would ask that the judiciary committee should hold a hearing and ask the agents about the fact that they have been directed even when they raid a place even when they have a warrant, even if they know other individuals are committing a crime at the time they are in those situations, they aren't allowed to arrest those witnessing the commission of a crime under the direction of an executive branch, which is trying to legislate from the white house. we need to send a clean signal. white house and executive branch need to enforce the laws of this country and not try to legislate from a branch. and i yield back.
6:22 pm
the chair: the gentleman from texas. the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to -- may be used to provide to a transportation security officer behavior detection officer, or other employee of the transportation security administration, one, a badge or shield, or two, a uniform with a badge tab. the chair: is that the amendment? mrs. blackburn: that is the first one. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of the day, the gentlewoman from tennessee, and
6:23 pm
a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: we reserve a point of order. the chair: point of order is reserved. pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentlewoman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: we know that the t.s.a. is out of control and congress does have an institutional role to bring them back in. in 2005, the t.s.a. reclassified airport security screeners' title to transportation security officers or as they are called, t.s.o.'s and subsequently they changed their uniforms to resemble that of a federal law enforcement officer. in 2008, a metal badge --
6:24 pm
the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. mr. dicks: the minority does not have a copy of the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: copies will be distributed. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. blackburn: in 2008, a metal badge was added. this title and the uniform -- the changes that were made, mr. chairman, were simply made to give the t.s.o.'s an athousand tatetive appearance. the t.s.a. and behavioral correction officers do not receive any federal law enforcement training and not eligible for federal law enforcement benefits and they they are in name only. they were set in place as airport security screeners and
6:25 pm
administratively since 2005, they have moved through all of these changes. now, in november, 2009, as of november, 2009, the t.s.a. had spent $1 million on t.s.o. badges. the current amount is unknown because t.s.o. will not release the figure. when congress created the t.s.a. the presence was to be in the capacity of airport security screeners, not transportation
6:26 pm
security officers or law enforcement officers. almost every day of the week, you can turn on the news and you see story after story where a t.s.o. in uniform has been arrested or acted inappropriately with a passenger. i believe many of these problems stem from the fact that the t.s.a. does not consistently conduct what we would call routine pre-employment or ongoing checks, background checks of new and existing employees. yet, after inconsistent use of background checks and only 80 hours of classroom training, we are giving t.s.o. a badge and a uniform. meanwhile, if you are interested in joining most of our police departments, you would spend up to six months in an academy, where you would receive law enforcement training. this would come after you met certain application requirements and were accepted into that academy. and after you pass the test and complete that training, you would be given the right to be called officer. here in d.c., they have advertised on t.s.o.'s on pizza
6:27 pm
boxes and on prompts at gas stations. they are abuses. fee a virginia woman was raped after a t.s.o. from washington dulles approached her wearing a t.s.a.-shoed uniform and flashed his badge. this past march, an officer was allegedly arrested for running a prostitution ring and he pled guilty to a second degree stault in 1999. why didn't t.s.a. catch that and performing that before they gave him a badge and a uniform. t.s.o. are abusing this limited authority. i released a report this week that involves 50 arrests involving the t.s.o.'s. these are reasons enough we need to take them out of the uniforms and disallow the uniforms and put them back to their job title
6:28 pm
of airport security screener. i urge my colleague to join me. american alliance of airport police officers which represents rank and file. and in dallas and new york, who are tired of t.s.a.'s mission creep and adopt this amendment. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, this amendment is aimed at the people who protect us in our airports. it dissparges their service and devalues their contribution and undermines our efforts to make this a competent force. why would we do this? what an unnecessary and damaging amendment. this amendment would prevent
6:29 pm
transportation security administration and law enforcement personnel from wearing a metal badge or wearing a uniform that resembles the uniform of a law enforcement officer. what an insult to these people. we count on these people to protect us. we put them in our aviation system as a critical protection against terrorism and against others who would do us harm. how counterproductive is this to our efforts to develop a competent, professional force? t.s.a.'s current title and uniform policies are consistent with the skill and professional nature of t.s.a.'s frontline work force. they are aligned with other security professional professions within the department of homeland security. how gratuitous is it to dissparge this work force.
6:30 pm
these are skilled people. we want to boost their morale and show appreciation for their efforts. this amendment would be a backwards step and i think it is a petty backwards step and would hinder our efforts to develop a risk-based, intell against-driven security to secure our airports. i yield to a member of the authorizing committee, ms. jackson lee. . . ms. jackson lee: i serve on the committee, a well-trained professional team is what we have been working toward and what we are achieving. i ask my colleagues to remember america pre-9/11. without a professional work force. and i'd also like to say that in spite of the citations of inappropriate behavior, which none of us condone, there are
6:31 pm
thousands upon thousands of untold stories of t.s.a. officers doing their job, providing the safety line for the safety of this nation and providing assistance to the traveling public. how do i know? because i make it a habit of visiting airports and seeing our t.s.a. officers work and interacting with them and asking them how long they have served. many of them came in at 9/11 because they could not sit idly by while the nation had an attacked. many of them are former law enforcement officers, former military personnel, who believe they are serving their nation. what is a badge? it is a dignity that is allowed to those who are on the frontlines of the nation's security. what is a uniform? it is a consistent statement that you are authorized to do your duty. and i would simply say in the mistakes that occur in any body, whatever body it might be, local law enforcement, the united states military, do we strip
6:32 pm
them of their gear because of incident or arbitrary incidences that individuals will perpetuate? in this instance we have a majority of heroic firstline individuals who want to do better. can we do better? absolutely. but it is not done through the removal of the badge or the removal of the uniform. i would just say to my colleague s that we have been blessed since the tragedy of 9/11. but i am reminded of the tragedy of 9/11. and i'm reminded of the heroic souls who lost their lives, families who still mourn and i'm reminded of the effort of this congress and the administration to answer the call. the t.s.o., the transportation security administration, was part of answering that call. it's our dutyy, i believe, to ensure that professional service, to allow them to serve, and to ensure that they're serving the american public. with that i ask my colleagues to
6:33 pm
oppose the gentlelady from tennessee's amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. price: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i would like to yield to the gentlelady from tennessee for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. one point where i think we all agree is that there are many good people that work with the t.s.a. mrs. blackburn: i have some good friends that work with the t.s.a. but to my colleagues here on the floor, i would remind you those that are our airport screeners and now called transportation security officers, they cannot detain anyone. if they find someone they want to detain they have to call the airport police. i would also remind you, in the legislation that was passed in this house they are designated
6:34 pm
as an airport scurept -- security screener to assist the traveling public and i will also remind you that these t.s.o.'s are receiving 80 hours of training. 80 hours. and then three to five weeks of on the job d training -- on the job training. our air marshals, our policemen, those law enforcement officers are receiving much more training and despite t.s.a.'s growing presence, more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred at u.s. airports in the last decade and they are dealt with by the airport police. i yield back to the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: yes, mr. chairman, i rise to oppose the amendment. i think this amendment is very well intentioned and -- but the amendment unfortunately would force the t.s.a. to wear
6:35 pm
civilian gear and this could possibly confuse the public as to whether the screeners have the authorized duty to carry out their lawful inspection of screening. it would also require the t.s.a. to discard millions of dollars worth of current uniforms and the bill does not fund any new uniforms. i do think there are some things that we need to address in this and i appreciate the gentlelady from tennessee bringing it to my attention here and i would be happy to work with her but again i have to oppose the amendment but like i said i would be happy to work with her and see if we can come to some accommodation on this. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington has reserved a point of order. does the gentleman insist on his point of order? mr. dicks: i withdraw my point of order. the chair: the gentleman withdraws his point of order. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
6:36 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment -- mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? mrs. blackburn: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for, one, a department of homeland security visible intermodal prevention and response vipr team or, two, transportation security administration transportation security officers or behavior detection officers outside an airport.
6:37 pm
the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, and a member opposed each -- mr. dicks: mr. chairman. again we do not have an accurate copy of the amendment and our side would -- we feel like we're at a disadvantage. this thing has been rewritten and we haven't got the final copy -- the chair: a draft of the amendment will be distributed. mr. dicks: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee and a member opposed each will control five minutesed a the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from -- minutes and the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make certainhawe atheppropriate time. mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: apparently the wrong
6:38 pm
version of this amendment was just read. if we have the accurate version. i yield to the chairman. mr. aderholt: we are trying to get the correct version distributed at this time. so i understand what the concern is and -- mr. dicks: mr. chairman, i think they read the wrong version of this thing. we're operating on an amendment that is not -- mr. aderholt: i think the gentleman is correct and if we are -- mr. dicks: can we start over? this is rather unusual, to have hands-scratched out amendments that, you know -- the chair: if the gentleman from washington will suspend. the chairman will ask the gentlewoman from tennessee if the clerk read the correct amendment. mrs. blackburn: he did not read the correct amendment, right. mr. dicks: it's hard to understand what the correct amendment would be the way it is.
6:39 pm
the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for transportation security administration, transportation security officers or behavior detection officers outside an airport. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. that is the correct amendment. and i want to thank the committee for working with to us make certain that we get it right. one of the things i learned through my legislative career is that many times leg council will advise something is done one way and parliamentarians another way. and whether it was at the state level or the federal level, it is good to say, let's get it right. and let's do it right the first time. you have less cleanup. if we did more that have in this house, we would be coming back to this floor fewer times to
6:40 pm
correct wrongs that have been done. certainly our plate is full of them this year. there are some great aspects in the d.h.s. bill. but there is one i have a lot of concern on and it is the funding that is there for these d.h.s. viper teams. now, this is what has happened since 2005. the teams have begun conducting random searches. the objective of the deployments is to augment capabilities that disrupt and deter potential terrorist activity. however, to date we have not received any report of a team successfully preventing a single terrorist activity.
6:41 pm
despite the fact that during this time frame the f.b.i., the c.i.o. and police officers have been highly successful at discovering and apprehending terrorists here in the u.s. last year alone vipr teams ran more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations. this comes at a rate of approximately 170 to 190 deployments each week. this past october tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide vipr team operation with t.s.a. transportation security officers. the v, i -- vipr team randomly inspected truck drivers on the side of tennessee's highways and i remind you, these are individuals that have no law enforcement training. recently we even saw t.s.a. -- t.s.o.'s at the capital south metro station a few weeks ago
6:42 pm
randomly inspecting -- the chair: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: we want to know if the gentlelady would yield. the chair: does the gentlelady yield? mr. dicks: just very briefly. we're confused again because the gentlelady's referring to section 1 of her previous amendment which has now taken -- which is now taken out. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee controls the time. does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. blackburn: no, i do not yield. i'm going to finish my statement. and discuss the activity of these teams that are working outside of an airport. while we have to remember -- what we have to remember is the t.s.o.'s were previously called airport security agents and now they have become transportation security officers and now they are working outside of the airport. i want to you keep in mind this
6:43 pm
about what transpired at the capital south metro. passengers had their bags randomly inspected. keep in mind that these t.s.o.'s did not inspect every bag that came in front of them. they entered the station for looking through some random selections and they ignored everybody that was leaving that station. they only took people going in, not people coming out. that should really give everybody concern right now. if there was some reason for actionable intelligence, you would have been searching everybody, just a few steps away interest this capitol. funding for almost -- from this capitol. funding for almost 200 vipr deployments each week that are random and not based on and driven by intelligence is not an effective national security policy, nor does it serve the
6:44 pm
american taxpayer well. catching terrorist isn't a secret, it needs to be driven by intelligence, which is why the f.b.i., our nation's law enforcement, and the capitol police have been successful at it. i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i first want to express some puzzlement, though, and perhaps the sponsor of this amendment can clarify this as she closes. one of the early scribbled versions of this amendment did indeed refer to vipr teams and about 2/3 of her statement was about vipr teams but my understanding is that the copy of the amendment we now have has had that portion scratched out.
6:45 pm
so the amendment no longer pertains to vipr teams. could i just for a moment get some clarification on that? mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, yes, all of these t.s.o.'s that are working outside of our nation's airports, as i said, they were originally put in place as airport security officers. and as the gentleman well knows -- mr. price: i ask a very direct question. does the amendment include or not include vipr -- vipr teams? mrs. blackburn: this amendment is addressing those that are working outside of our nation's airports. this is an over-reach, it is a stretch. they're not put in place to do that. and i think the gentleman from north carolina understands that very well. . mr. price: there is a lot of confusion about this amendment. the vipr teams aside, let me just say to put in this bill a
6:46 pm
blanket prohibition against t.s.a. officers operating outside of an airport is overly broad and would be damaging with respect to the things our screeners often are asked to do. some screeners do assist in passenger screening at transit facilities and sometimes they are asked to help out at national security events. i'm told there may be a role at the national convention, where a surge capacity is called for. now, some discretion, some good judgment is called for in the use of these personnel, but escapes me in an appropriations bill we would want to write in a prohibition of this sort when there are uses for these personnel outside the airport that are very valuable and contribute to our security. so i urge defeat of the amendment. and yield back.
6:47 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i will be brief. if you ever traveled in an airport the last 10 years, you are familiar with the t.s.a.'s and invasive conduct, whether it is the full-body scans or patdowns. if you didn't want to go through that, you could drive your own car, driving your own truck and not go through such an examination. that is not the case. the t.s.a. is not just for airports anymore. as the gentlelady has explained. they now go beyond the airports and go onto the nation's rest stops and truck stops. and do so in a manner that is
6:48 pm
not from the original intent of the homeland security bill that created the t.s.a.'s and going out there where there is no identifiable public security threat has been posed and doing so in the most absurd manner. in savannah, georgia, they checked on an amtrak train. that sounds like a good idea. they did it when the people were getting off of the train as opposed to getting on. in brownsville, texas and checked the cars there, private cars, my car, your car and did it over at a port not with the people going into a port. they did it when the cars were leaving the port. and again, there was no identifiable risk at that time. we need the t.s.a. let americans know you can still travel in this country and get
6:49 pm
in your own car and not be worried that there is going to be a t.s.a. agent out there and what is security theater. ms. lofgren: would the gentleman yield mr. aderholt: yes. ms. lofgren: i would like to make a brief comment because i actually share the concerns expressed about t.s.a. agents randomly going out -- i had an incident as that in the city of san jose and i find it highly objectionable. the concern i have with this amendment as mr. price has said, you could not utilize this work force and say ok, we are having the republican convention. we needs all hands on deck to do security. if this amendment passes, that would be off limits. if you had an actual threat where you needed expertise, you
6:50 pm
couldn't use them. i think that's a mistake, even though i want to say i think the issue you raised is a solid one and i agree with you, but the amendment goes way beyond the issue that we agree on. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentlelady and reclaiming my time. i appreciate the gentlelady from tennessee working with us as we are trying to reword the amendment with the proposed changes. so with the proposed changes that have been given to the clerk and handed out to minority, we would accept the changes and accept the amendment. the chair: who seeks recognition? mr. dicks: i rise to strike the requisite words. it seems to me that instead of doing an amendment here on the floor when we really don't have the information before us, your side is in charge of homeland security. peter king is a very able chairman of the homeland
6:51 pm
security committee, there ought to be hearings on this issue if, in fact, these t.s.a. people are overstepping their bounds. but to come here on the floor and try to cut off funding when we have no idea -- the gentlelady had to rewrite her amendment several times for god knows what reason, i mean this is hardly the way to legislate. so i urge defeat of this scratchy little amendment and let's go to peter king and benny thompson and ask them to hold hearings on this. do this responsibly. this amendment will be dropped. it isn't going anywhere, frankly, so you might as well face the fact that when we get to conference this is gone. the senate and administration will never agree to it and shouldn't. if you want to do something that
6:52 pm
is constructive go to the homeland security committee and let them deal with it. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: mr. chairman, i ask for a -- no. i yield back. the chair: the amendment is not
6:53 pm
adopted. who seeks recognition? mrs. blackburn: we do ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. who seeks recognition. mr. pierluisi: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 16. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pierluisi of puerto rico. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from puerto rico, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico. mr. pierluisi: mr. chairman, violent crime -- mr. aderholt: mr. chairman. i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pierluisi: violent crime in puerto rico and virgin islands has been on the rise even though violent crime nationwide has decreased during that same time period.
6:54 pm
puerto rico's crime is six times the national average. there are a number of reasons for the largest spike, one of the most important factors is that the united states government has to its credit has increased resources along the southwest border with mexico in an effort to stem the flow of drugs into our nation through the central american land corridor and reduce violence in u.s. border states. as a result, drug trafficking organizations have used air and maritime routes through the car bee and to supply the u.s. market just as they did back in the 1980's and 1990's. puerto rico have nearly as many homicides as texas with a population of 25 million. 7 % of these homicides were linked to international drug trade. through various bills and accompanying reports, the appropriations committee has taken clear notice of this issue
6:55 pm
and directed law enforcement to prioritize counterdrug efforts in the u.s. caribbean. indeed, in the report accompanying the bill before us, the committee states, the public safety and issues of the u.s. territories and caribbean must be a priority. we expect to allocate the resources, assets and personnel in a manner and to a degree consistent with that principle. i thank the chairman and ranking member for including this important language. u.s. customs and border protection is on the front lines of the counter drug fight. the agency has hundreds of personnel stationed in puerto rico. these men and women work for the various offices under the agency's umbrellas. my amendment is designed to address a problem that has recently arisen and one that compromises the ability of
6:56 pm
c.b.p. to carry out its mission in puerto rico. federal law has provided that taxing puerto rico or its predecessor agencies will be depositted in the puerto rico trust fund pursuant to the law and implementing agreement between the puerto rico agreement and federal government, a significant portion of that money is also used to fund certain federal operations including the maritime operations of c.b.p.'s office of air and marine in puerto rico. for many years, this arrangement worked well, however, because of a shortfall in the puerto rico trust fund of $1.7 million due to reduced cost in collections, c.b.p. closed the critical unit in 2001 that seized 7,000 pounds of illegal drugs. they have interpreted law to require that it use either the trust fund or general congressional appropriations to
6:57 pm
fund its operations, but not both. my amendment would give c.b.p. the authority to seek any funding from the trust fund with general appropriations so we will avoid a repeat of what happened in the case of san juan boat unit. it does not require c.b.p. to spend an additional dollar in puerto rico or require puerto rico over other jurisdictions and the amendment has no budgetary impact sm the amendment merely gives the agency the flexibility and discretion to draw upon general appropriations to address the recent shortfall in the trust fund in order to fulfill its responsibilities in puerto rico. the amendment will ensure that the counterdrug mission in puerto rico is not unduly harmed. this will promote the broader national security interests of the united states since 80% of the drugs that enter puerto rico
6:58 pm
are ultimately transported to the u.s. mainland. i thank the chairman and ranking member for including language in the committee report and i look forward to work with them to ensure that the department of homeland security, including c.b.p. have the resources it needs to address the drug-related violence in puerto rico. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from puerto rico reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, with withdraw our point of order and we accept the amendment. mr. pierluisi: i thank the majority and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from puerto rico. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise?
6:59 pm
>> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sullivan of oklahoma, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to terminate an agreement regarding a delegation of authority under section 287-g of the immigration and nationality act, 8 u.s.c. 1357-g that is in p existence on the date of the enactment of this act. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. sullivan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. sullivan: it is no secret that the obama administration wants to phase out the 287-g program. this program has successfully teamed up local law enforcement with federal agents to pursue a wide range of investigations, such as human smuggling, gang
7:00 pm
and other organized crime activity and money laundering, but the president thinks this program is ineffective. in order to phase the 287-g, president obama's f.y. 2013 budget request struck $17 million from the program by terminating agreements and stopping any further agreements from being signed. thankfully, the underlying bill restores funding to the 287-g. the 287-g program provides state and local law enforcement with the training to identify, process and detain possible immigration offenders. this program extends the federal government's ability to enforce our immigration laws without the additional overhead. this program has been highly successful at not only apprehending immigration offenders, but has facilitated the incarceration of dangerous criminals and has contributed to overall public safety. nationwide, more than 1,00
7:01 pm
officers have been trained and certified to enforce immigration laws and there are 68 active memorandum of agreements in 24 states. all together, since the program's inception, 287-g has identified 186,000 aliens for removal. mr. chairman, let me tell you about some local 287-g success stories from my district. . . they rescued the female victims from having up to 22 men forced on them per day. this is possible because of 287-g partnership. because of this partnership, the tulsa county sheriff's office conducted investigations into known large shipments of amphetamines, opium and powdered testosterone resulting in successful prosecution. because of 287-g the tulsa county sheriff's office assisted with an arrest of nine illegal
7:02 pm
immigrants being smuggled inhumanely in the bed of a chevy avalanche, one of whom was a child. since the inception of the program in tulsa, the tulsa county sheriff's office has identified, processed and entered into immigration proceedings over 14,000 aliens, representing those with dangerous criminal backgrounds. sex trafficking, drugs and human smuggling are all part of what 287-g programs help stop. these stories are from tulsa, but every locality that participates in this program has similar and equally laudable results. while full funding has been restored to 287-g, and h.r. 5855 -- in l.r. 5855 the program -- in h.r. 5855 the program needs further protection. in order to further insulate agreements and keep them from being terminated for plit katrinacal reasons, my amendment prevents the determination of standing 287-g agreements.
7:03 pm
we cannot allow the obama administration any loophole to phase out or terminate this important program and place more undue pressure on our communities. simply put, until the federal government steps up and starts doing its job, local law enforcement will continue to pick up the slack and enforce our laws. i encourage the adoption of my commonsense amendment by my colleagues today and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to terminate 287-g agreements. the 287-g program, as many people know, is a well intentioned effort to allow state and local law enforcement entities to enter into a partnership with immigration and customs enforcement. well intentioned but it has
7:04 pm
turned out seriously flawed in the practice. nine years after the 287-g program was first initiated but there's been a thorough documentation of abuses and poor management of the program. there have been three audits by the d.h.s. inspector general that raise serious concerns about the program. as a result i.c.e. has had to reform the 287-g program to ensure consistency and immigration enforcement actions across the country. the agencies also had to terminate some 287-g task forces. noteably in maricopa county, california, after the justice department clearly documented racial profiling and other program abuses. two other counties were also terminated for cause. there are also questions about cost effectiveness. in fact, very serious questions about cost effectiveness. under the 287-g task force model, it calls -- cost $13,322 to apprehend one alien.
7:05 pm
and $19,941 to remove that alien. because of these costs as well as other concerns i've already mentioned, assistant secretary moreton began notifying communities this -- morton began notifying communities this spring that i.c.e. would not be considering them for state and local jurisdictions and instead will devote resources to the expansion of our i.c.e. programs and the continued deployment of secure communities. for comparison purposes, under secure communities that cost ice $69 -- $469 to apprehend an alien and $1,321 to remove. that's 10 times less than the 287-g task force model. and many communities across the country are agreeing with this, in transitioning away from the 287-g program to secure communities. for example, the sheriff of
7:06 pm
davidson county, tennessee, questioned whether the 287-g program was necessary given its low level of apprehensions and fact that only 68 communities participate across the country. with security amendments being implemented nationwide in over 3,000 communities by the spring of 2013, i frankly see little need to continue the 287-g program. now, if this amendment's adopted, it's going to force i.c.e. to fund this cost prohibitive and questionable immigration enforcement activity. to keep on doing that what we know isn't working. wasting federal taxpayer funds. this is a time of fiscal restraint. this is a time when we should be applying cost benefit standards. effectiveness standards. so members need to oppose this amendment and allow the assistant secretary to prioritize funding decisions based on the most pressing
7:07 pm
immigration needs of this country and on reasonable standards of cost effectiveness. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words and i yield to the gentlelady from california. >> i would just like to note that there is a difference, which obviously the gentleman has a right to refine his amendment, but the original version of the amendment that we saw had a provision that allowed for termination in certain cases . for example, when the inspector general determined that a term of the agreement would violate it. the amendment before us no longers that that provision and i think it's an -- longer has that provision and i think it's an important distinction -- distinction. ms. lofgren: over $33,000 to find and remove an alien under
7:08 pm
this program, there are complicated agreements that are engaged in between the localities and the federal government. if they aren't adhered to, there needs to be an enforcement action and that would not be the case under this amendment. i would note also that if a locality no longer thinks it's worth it, because really it costs them, too. and it's time that might be better spent doing something else. if they say this is not working out, we want to terminate it, i don't think under this amendment they would be able to do it because the federal government would need to respond to their request and terminate. i finally would say that as mr. price has indicated, this is a program that has -- although i think had good intentions, didn't work out the way people thought. that sometimes happens in law and it often happens in
7:09 pm
immigration law. it's expensive, it's in less than 100 localities in the united states. many of them are rethinking it. the terms and conditions have frequently not been adhered to. in some notorious cases there have been flagrant violations of civil rights and the department has had to go in and yank contracts. but even in the cases where there haven't been really outrageous civil rights violations, there have been problems. and i think there are likely better and more cost effective ways to enforce the immigration laws which is why the department has notified us that -- their intention to begin notifying communities just this spring, that they're not going to be considering any further requests from state and local jurisdictions, that current policy will be permitted under this amendment. they don't have to accept any
7:10 pm
more. so we would be stuck with the 68 that we have, no more, no less. i don't think that's a sensible way to proceed on the enforcement of the immigration law and i think the amendment, although i'm sure intended -- with the best of intentions, would not enhance the enforcement of law and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. dicks: i reclaim my time. i.c.e. itself has raised concerns about the cost effectiveness of the 287 program. i mean, with all due respect, this sounds like a program that both sides think isn't working that well. we ought to get rid of it. we could put this up on your wall, one of the things you've killed. for example, under the 287-g task force model, it costs $13,2 22 to apprehend one alien. and $19,941 to remove them. now, you compare that as the
7:11 pm
distinguished rank member did with the secured communities program, it costs i.c.e. $649 to apprehend one alien and $1,321 to remove them. more than 10 times less than the 287-g task force model. i would be glad to yield to my distinguished friend from oklahoma to answer why would you want to keep the more expensive program if the secure communities program is working? mr. sullivan: the program has been a huge success and i disagree with my colleagues on the other side that it's not. what we're trying to do is get rid of criminal illegal immigrants in our country that are raping people and drug trafficking, that are murdering people, that are dangerous, dangerous criminals. mr. dicks: why can't we -- the chair: the gentleman from washington claims the time.
7:12 pm
mr. sullivan: i've heard in my area about sex slaves and human trafficking. mr. dicks: reclaiming my time. again, i would just ask the gentleman to contemplate if we have a secured communities program that is dealing with this same issue and doing it at 10 times less for the taxpayers, why wouldn't we -- and this program has had the inspector general all over it, why wouldn't we get rid of it, if it's that expensive to do and use secured communities? so i yield back. this is a commonsense thought here. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington state yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. sullivan: this program actually cuts costs. it's a program that's very efficient. it's one that has to be implemented at the local levels because the federal government's failed to do its job. the federal government doesn't do anything in immigration policy at all in this country. and it's been thrust upon local communities like my local
7:13 pm
sheriff's office. my local sheriff, stanley glands, has instituted this 287-g program in our community. and it's kept us safe and secure and we've taken into -- it into our own hands. to get people off our streets that are criminal illegal immigrants. and it costs money to do that, but i think it's done in a very efficient way, that cuts costs. it's done it in a very efficient manner. and these people wreaking havoc on our communities. there's a lot of costs. a lot of costs involved in that. that's not being talked about. to the tunes of millions and
7:14 pm
millions of dollars across this country. and i think for us, we'd be abdicating our responsibility, congressman dicks. we'd be abdicating our responsibility if we did not fund this 287-g program. this is something we should embrace on both sides of the aisle. it's so important. i mean, we -- because of our location to other countries, we have people coming through our country every day, smuggling people and drugs all the time. we have identity theft in our communities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sullivan: it needs to be addressed. this is the only way we can do it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: yes, mr. chairman, i would like to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i would like to add that we do support -- strongly support 287-g and as a matter of fact we have increased 287-g by 25% in this bill. we reject the administration's cuts to 287-g and we agree with the amendment from the gentleman from oklahoma. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. price: mr. chairman, i ask for the yeas and nays.
7:15 pm
the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. my home state is still recovering from billions of dollars in damage after the floods of 2008, which were we worst disaster in our state's history and one of the worst disasters in our nation's history. unfortunately today, we have communities that have been awarded funds through the fema public assistance program that
7:16 pm
over a year after the funds were awarded to replace buildings and local funds have been spent, fema may be required to take back that funding at no fault to the community. that's what those folks are afraid of. mr. loebsack: we shouldn't leave our communities holding the bag on a failed project or destroyed and decaying buildings and a loss of local taxpayer funds. i don't believe that fema should come into one of our communities and take back disaster funding over a year after it's been awarded and after our communities have already spent a large amount of their taxpayers' money with the understanding that the project was moving forward. communities recovering from disasters right now, as i know the chairman's is, are also struggling in the worst recession since the great depression. the last thing they need is to have more uncertainty thrown at them by losing disaster recovery assistance.
7:17 pm
disaster recovery must be a collaboration. our local communities should not have the rug pulled out from under them after years of struggling to recover because the federal government committed support for rebuilding a community and then later took back that support. we need to maintain a partnership with states and communities, which means confidence that the federal government's promise of recovery funding means something. mr. chairman, i just hope that we can work together with fema to ensure that taxpayer dollars are protected that we can work together at all levels to rebuild communities and economies destroyed by disasters all over this great nation and that our local communities' recovery can move forward while we address any issues outside of the community's ongoing recovery process. i thank you for recognizing me and i yield back. the chair: i thank the gentleman for raising these issues and bringing it to our
7:18 pm
attention. the district i represent was -- i thank the secret for raising these issues and bringing it to our attention. mr. aderholt: the community i represent is also recovering from a disaster. i understand my colleague's worry and we need to be cognizant of local communities if they are awarded funds and then have those funds taken back through no fault of their own my colleague raises some commonsense points and issues we should look at toyota -- look at to address to make sure they are not expending local funds for no reason so that taxpayer dollars are protected at the local and federal level and so there is a better and more cooperative partnership between the federal government and these recovering communities. it is important that the state and federal partnership on disaster recovery is maintained in a collaborative and productive fashion and i agree
7:19 pm
with my colleague from iowa and hope that the issues like this don't disrupt the partnership that lead to communities doubting the sincerity or ability of their government to come to their aid in such a time as need. i know that everyone wants favorable outcomes and for our communities to recover as quickly as possible and agree that communities shouldn't bear the burden of an agency's mistake. as recovery continues in the district of my colleague from iowa, i pledge to work with him and fema to address these issues and look forward to recovering in a timely manner. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. barletta of pennsylvania. at the end of the bill, before
7:20 pm
the short title, insert the following, segs, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of 642-a of the illegal immigration reform and immigration act of 2006 8 u.s.c. 1373-a. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. barletta: mr. speaker, every day we are in session, we create new laws. some affect spending, some protect our citizens and country, some honor those who have fallen. all are important, all carry the same weight and all are federal laws. but there are some elected officials in the united states who believe that they can pick and choose the laws they follow. in 1996, congress passed and the president signed the bipartisan illegal immigration
7:21 pm
reform and immigrant responsibility act. this law says very clearly that no local government entity or official may prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from immigration and customs enforcement information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. but every day in cities across america, elected officials break that law. and millions of illegal aliens benefit from the lack of enforcement. they benefit by taking jobs from american citizens and legal immigrants. they benefit by using taxpayer-funded benefits. some of our communities not only ignore the law, but many communities across our nation
7:22 pm
willfully violate federal law by encouraging illegal alien tots live in their cities, saying that they will be safe from federal government's reach. mind you, the federal government is not asking these cities to do anything extraordinary. the government is not asking cities to implement a radical new law. the federal government is merely asking these cities to obey the law. a law that's been on the books for 16 years. this is what the american people want. according to a recent poll, an overwhelming majority of americans want the department of justice to uphold the law and take legal action against cities that break existing federal immigration law. but once again, in the area of illegal immigration control, the federal government fails to act. instead, we send billions of
7:23 pm
tax dollars to these communities. that's why my colleagues and i rise to offer this amendment this evening. this amendment would prevent federal funds from being given to cities and towns that do not follow federal immigration law. this amendment will uphold existing federal law. it will discourage the creation of a confusing national patchwork where some cities uphold the law and other cities willfully ignore it. this amendment makes sense. it will keep us safe. and it cuts down on waste, fraud, and abuse. i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
7:24 pm
mr. price: this amendment is merely a restatement of existing law, it doesn't need to be in this bill. moreover, there's no evidence that any state or local government that is riletted law in this area. homeland security secretary michael chertoff, a republican, testify head wasn't aware of any city that interferes with the department's ability to enforce the law. so it's a largely fabricated problem, i believe, that -- and the amendment itself would simply restate existing law. at this point, i'd like to yield to the ranking member of our immigration policy and enforcement committee, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would join in my opposition to the amendment and note that the amendment before us does not present highway funds and other funds from going -- prevent highway funds and other
7:25 pm
funds from going to sanctuary cities at all. further, i would note, as mr. price has done, that these so-called sanctuary laws really very rarely, if at all, from the record, have to do with communicating between the locality and the federal government. they have to do with what the locality is doing and their own citizens. in many urban parts of the country, police chiefs have made a decision that they need to trust their communities to be witnesses to crime, to come forward, to cooperate with the police and that they do not want to play the role of immigration police. they want to be the real police. that is a decision that localities can make provided that they do not run afoul of the 1996 act that prohibits the
7:26 pm
restrickses on sending or receiving information. so here's the deal. you can say we're not going to disrupt this community because of our need to get the trust of the community, but you can't prohibit the communication with the federal government. so i think that this amendment will not achieve anything. the law is already clear. passed in 1996. i would further note that there is a case, it had to do with gun control. it's called the prince case and what it -- what it says is that the federal government cannot commandeer local and state governments to enforce the federal law. if that's really what the intent is here, it would violate the supreme court decision saying, you can't use the power of the federal government to force cities to enforce gun control laws. i would say you couldn't do that to force cities to enforce immigration laws either.
7:27 pm
that would be the prince case. it doesn't matter really whether the amendment is approved or not because as i indicated and mr. price indicated, this has been part of our law since 1996 and i would yield back to the gentleman. mr. price: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose -- the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: i agree with the gentleman's amendment he's brought frt and i yield at this point to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the city of san francisco, for example, officially declared itself an illegal alien sanctuary city by the board of
7:28 pm
supervisors in 1989 -- in 1999. mr. culberson: now they're granting illegal aliens official city identification cards. this is thed of the public information office of the national association of chiefs of police reports that in california, illegal aliens in san francisco are being assured through costly spanish language advertising campaigns that they will never be reported to federal law enforcement agents such as i.c.e., immigrations and customs enforcement, or u.s. border patrol, or any other federal agency that could initiate the deportation process. that's a direct violation of the federal law that the gentleman from pennsylvania just read. i'm proud to co-author this amendment with my friend from pennsylvania because he's exactly right this amendment will save lives. if a local law enforcement agency refuses to follow federal law, they should not
7:29 pm
expect to be rewarded with federal grant money. that's what this amendment would do. cut off federal grant money to sanctuary cities across america. i suspect you'll see them repeal their sanctuary city policy very rapidly when they discover they don't have access to federal money. most recently in the city of san francisco, a renowned gang member, member of ms-13 gang, was just convicted for three first degree murders in 2008, a father and two sons were murdered by this illegal alien who had multiple run-ins with law enforcement authorities in san francisco but because of the sanctuary city policy in san francisco, he was not deported. i urge the members of the house to support the gentleman's amendment this ealt will -- amendment will save lives. i would like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from alabama controls the time.
7:30 pm
mr. aderholt: reclaiming my time, i recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you for yielding me some time. this is one of those moments where you get to stand up behind the microphone and being from arizona, embrace the irony. think of this. this federal government sues my state for actually enforcing federal immigration law, but yet in this particular case, as my friend here was just pointing out, we hand money to communities that are walking away from enforcing the very law. mr. schweikert: does anyone see the irony of you sue us for doing it, but reward municipalities for becoming a sanctuary city and not living up to their obligations? with that, i yield back to the gentleman. mr. aderholt: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you. again, to sum up this, i was a mayor of a small town in
7:31 pm
pennsylvania and when the problem of illegal immigration hit my city, i came here to ask for help. because our small budget couldn't help defend the people in my community and when i came here and i talked to many experts, what i left -- what i got was a nice coffee mug, a pin, a pat on the back and a good luck, mayor. mr. barletta: when i finally decided after a 29-year-old city man was shot between the eyes by an illegal alien who had been arrested eight times before he came to my city, i said, enough was enough. i had to protect the people of my community. and what happened was i was sued and i was told that we will bankrupt your city if you continue to fight. but yet we have mayors across the country who are going to pick and choose what laws they want to defend. we're not asking for some crazy new law. we're asking mayors to defend the laws that they took an oath
7:32 pm
of office that they would defend. and that's what this bill would do. we should not reward those who are openly, openly defying federal laws that this congress had passed. thank you. mr. aderholt: reclaiming my time. i'd like to say i support the gentleman's amendment from pennsylvania and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment -- mr. dicks: mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington state -- mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of wordeds and i yield to the distinguish -- words and i yield to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from washington and i rise in opposition to this amendment. and i think this amendment is an opportunity for us to examine why this issue is being discussed. the fact that there is such a large illegal population in our cities, in our counties, in our states, is not their fault. it's not a mayor's fault, it's not a county commissioner's fault, it's not a governor's fault. it is our fault. it is congress' fault, it's the
7:33 pm
failure of our federal policies' fault. many of our communities have large illegal populations and including many of the communities i represent. and they try to get by. they try to engage in community policing, to keep their communities safe and earn the trust of their immigrant populations. they try to ensure that their immigrant populations are well cared for and they're doing as best as they can. but until we fix that policy here and replace our broken immigration laws with a system that works for this country and works for the private sector and is in touch with reality, it's counterproductive to prevent experimentation with the state and local level. if the state of utah wants to experiment with work we are mitts -- with work we are mitt -- permits, let's let them find way to do it. let them try to get by a little better. and until this body actually has
7:34 pm
the courage to address fixing our broken immigration system, we should not consider measures that continue to symbolically or really continue to handcuff our state, local officials in dealing with the problems associated with illegal immigration. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i stand to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: at this time i'd like to yield the gentleman from rhode island to talk about a important cyberwork force issue. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i
7:35 pm
thank the gentleman for yielding and i first want to thank chairman aderholt for his hard work, his efforts to support and strengthen cybersecurity activities within the department of homeland security, and i want to thank him and his staff as well as mr. price and his staff for crafting this important piece of legislation. there can be no doubt of the importance of ensuring d.h.s. has the resources it needs to ex cute its role in protecting against cyberthreats. and key to this is attracting and retaining a robust and skilled cyberwork force. d.h.s. has been delegated numerous critical responsibilities in securing our federal networks through federal statute in o.m.b. memorandum. these include operating the united states computer emergency readiness team and overseeing the trusted internet connection initiative. d.h.s. also has primary responsibility within the executive branch for the operational aspects of federal agency cybersecurity, with respect to the information
7:36 pm
systems that fall under the federal security management act. now, while i applaud the chairman for delivering on the need to strengthen america's homeland security efforts, in the face of reducing federal spending, i would ask him if he gave consideration to the hiring, development and retention of our top-tier ishe security -- cybersecurity talent . in organizations such as the department of homeland security, absolutely must be able to attract and keep these highly skilled and highly valued individuals in order to defend federal networks and form better policy and i would yield to chairman aderholt. mr. aderholt: i thank the gentleman for his continued leadership on the cybersecurity matters and welcome the opportunity to engage him in this colloquy. ensure him the department of homeland security has the resources needed to execute cybersecurity responsibility entrusted to it is extremely important. and bodes not only on the
7:37 pm
short-term but also the long-term success of critical cybersecurity roles. i assure the gentleman that we will continue to examine how to best proceed to make sure the department is adequately and effectively resourced to deter and defend against cybersecurity threats. mr. langevin: will the gentleman yield? mr. aderholt: i yield. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for that and in that spirit i'd like to encourage the gentleman to work together with mr. price on efforts to determine and address potential d.h.s. cyberwork force challenges, specifically i believe it would be a great value to have d.h.s. study and report on its efforts, challenges and recommendations to address cyberwork force requirements at the agency. given their critically important roles with regard to federal cybersecurity, i believe we absolutely must make sure that d.h.s. can attract an equally important and retain the best
7:38 pm
and brightest to defend our networks and i'd yield to the chairman. mr. aderholt: i appreciate the gentleman's views and i look forward to working closely with him and examining these issues as we move forward. i'll make every effort to address the work force concern as we move toward conference on this bill. i yield to the gentleman. mr. langevin: i thank the chairman. i thank the gentleman. and i certainly look forward to working with my good friend, to ensure that our federal government is properly addressing this critically important cybersecurity and cyberwork force challenges, they're a very important issue. and i thank the chairman for all his hard work and also thank ranking member price for his outstanding work on this important bill. i yield back. mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alabama yields back. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i rise to offer an amendment en bloc. the amendment is at the desk and i would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered
7:39 pm
as read. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment en bloc. en bloc amendment offered by mr. aderholt of alabama. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, and a member opposesed each will control five minutes -- opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. aderholt: mr. chairman, this amendment combines three separate amendments which were outlined in our unanimous consent agreement earlier. the first from mr. engel as a limitation on funds for the lease or purchase of new light duty vehicles that are not in accordance with the president's fleet efficiency standards. the second is from mr. holt, a limitation on funds for the use of armored, unmanned aerial systems. and the third is from mr. price
7:40 pm
of georgia. limitation on funds being used in contravention of the nation's immigration laws. i would urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this en bloc amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. any other member seeking time? the gentleman from washington state. mr. dicks: if i could ask the chairman a question on this. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: it says none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the purchase, operation or maintenance of armed, unmanned aerial vehicles. is this from a homeland security? is this -- does that -- is this the prohibition on homeland security? mr. aderholt: that is correct. mr. dicks: has there ever been any plan to buy armed drones by homeland security? mr. aderholt: no. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
7:41 pm
the question is on the amendment offered by -- the en bloc amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendments -- en bloc amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment before the house. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. turner of new york. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section, a, except as provided in subsection b of the amounts made available by this act, not more than $20 million maybe made available for surface transportation security inspectors. b, the limitation described in subsection a shall not apply to the national explosives detection k-9 training program and visible intermold prevention
7:42 pm
and response teams. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from new york, mr. turner, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. turner: mr. chairman, my amendment today seeks to limit funding for the surface transportation inspection program. mr. chairman, in a hearing held by the transportation security subcommittee of homeland security of which i am a member, industry witnesses raised serious concerns about the efficacy of the surface transportation inspection program. here are some of the concerns raised at the hearing. most surface inspectors have no surface transportation experience or surface security background whatsoever. many surface inspectors were promoted from screening passengers of airports. these are inspectors that report to the federal security directors at local airports who
7:43 pm
commonly also do not possess any surface transportation experience. at least one local t.s.a. official indicated that he is always looking for things to do for his inspectors to occupy their time. most surface inspectors have two things to look for in a typical day. whether a transit system is reporting incidents to the t.s.a. and a box is checked on their clipboard, or whether there is a security person on duty, another box to be checked on a clipboard. the work of these inspectors is redundant, performed by employees of other agencies such as the department of transportation, osha or e.p.a. and on and on. ultimately slowing down what they -- what they do is slow down commerce on our nation's rails and highways. since 2008 t.s.a. has more than
7:44 pm
doubled the size of the transportation inspection work force and quadrupled the program's budget. yet according to the majority of stakeholders who we heard from, there's been almost no tangible improvement in security as a result of these investments. last year t.s.a.'s entire surface transportation security budget was $126 million. of this eamed amount surface -- of this amount surface inspectors cost taxpayers $36 million which does not even include headquarters, administration, oversight and staff associated with the program. this means that the surface transportation inspection program, which has been labeled as ineffective by a number of freight, rail, passenger service, bus and mistransit agencies, is consuming more than 40% of the entire surface transportation security budget. millions of americans rely on surface transportation every
7:45 pm
day. more than eight million people use public transportation in new york city alone. despite this need, less than 2% of the t.s.a.'s nearly $8 million budget goes towards securing our nation's transit -- surface transportation systems. and a large portion of that limited budget is being squandered on this ineffective inspection program. surface transportation security is too important to our national economy and receives see na small a portion of holdland security funding to raise a single dollar. opponents of this amendment may argue -- proponents of this amendment may argue that it may result in federal inspectors being put out of work. it will not. we are transferring money to imment more productive security measures within t.s.a. the question is simply, why should taxpayers, especially those who rely on surface transportation every day, have to fund a program that has no
7:46 pm
proven ability to enhance security? my amendment today seeks to limit the inspector program budget to $20 million which would substantially reduce its size and allow the saved money to be put forward into other, more effective, service programs such as k-9 detection unit, particularly at bus and rail stations. this amendment strengthens security, it addresses concerns raised by the very transit system the program is designed to protect. today, i ask you to join me in supporting this measure and i thank you for your time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: i confess to some puzzlement as to the intent of
7:47 pm
this amendment. despite the gentleman's explanation, what he's doing here in effect is totally restructuring the surface transportation security program . he's limiting to $20 million the funds available for sur vas -- surface transportation security inspectors. that's a potential decrease of $70 million from the carveout in the bill. now, he also, in the current draft of this amendment, excludes from the prohibition, excludes the national canine training program and vipr teams. he's not reducing funding overall but shifting a huge am of funding to these two functions. i don't understand the rationale for that,
7:48 pm
particularly when you consider the vital functions of the surface transportation security inspectors. why would we want to virtually phase them out? the mission of these individuals is to assess the risk of terrorist attacks for all nonaviation transportation, issue potential regulations to enforce existing rules, and protect our transportation systems. this proposed limitation could hinder rail inspections, baseline assessments, mass transit assessments, and risk mitigation activities. as i read the amendment, all these functions would be drastically compromised and with them, i think, the security of the traveling public. so i am baffled by the amendment but feel constrained to oppose it and to urge its defeat and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek
7:49 pm
recognition? mr. aderholt: i strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i rise to reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. i'm pleased that he brought this to our attention, i just found out about the matter today. i would like to work with the gentleman from new york, however, i do have concerns about the broadness of this amendment. the t.s.a. surface inspectors provide a number of security functions agreed on as a result of consultation with the state, federal, and private stake holders. in addition, they provide subject matter for evaluating eligible through transportation security grants. the amendment that the gentleman would bring up tonight would result in laying off about 240 inspectors, which is about 60% of the current work force. this would be an excessive
7:50 pm
action to address what seems to be a need to better focus on the needs of surface inspectors. it would effectively take t.s.a. out of the surface security rem when we know terrorists and those interested in attacking our mass transit and other sur mas -- sushfass modes of transportation are focused on just that. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back in mr. aderholt: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. who seeks recognition? >> i request a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york are postponed. for what purpose does the
7:51 pm
gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, a, each amount made available by this act other than an amount required to be made available by provision of law is hereby reduced by 2%. b, the reduction in subsection a shall not apply to amounts made available for, a, analysis and operation, 2, united states secret service salary and expenses, three, accounts in title three and four of the domestic nuclear detection office. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, will -- and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chairman. our nation continues to
7:52 pm
struggle under an ainest crew -- increasing mountain of debt. my constituents sent me to washington to do something about the budget deficit. that's why i was one of the handful of members who voted for the simpson bowles budget, the only budget -- the simpson-bowles budget, the only budget considered by the house of representatives that had bipartisan support. republicans and democrats voted for it. so, too, i joined my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in some but not all the across-the-board cuts and cuts proposed to various agencies in different appropriations bills. this bill is simple. it's a straight 2% cut across the board to this bill, exempting counterterrorism accounts. we shouldn't choose between protecting our country and cutting wasteful government spending. this was designed to protect the most politically sensitive and important accounts in this bill. namely, fema and anti-terrorism activities, which was of course
7:53 pm
the original purpose under which president bush composed the department of homeland security. it is an area that we should not sacrifice. my amendment is right about safeguarding the american people without continuing to squander taxpayer dollars. the best thing we can do to safeguard the american people is balance our budget. the longer we fail to take action with regard to making the necessary cut the more rewe make ourselves economically beholden to foreign countries such as china. during this time of budgetary constraints, when our deficit is spiraling out of control, we need to take every opportunity to eliminate unnecessary government spending. cutting government spending is never easy. it might mean jobs in different agency, it might mean missions we agree or disagree on. but i think cutting $640 million for -- from an overall bill of $46 billion is a reasonable first step. now in particular, the
7:54 pm
department of homeland security has significant wastes and abuse that can be targeted for reduction. it's had massive failures and in these economic time, we shouldn't continue to reward failure of an agency. there's so many frivolous programs in the department, it's hard to know where to begin. in the 2011 report, the independent g.a.o. suggested 11 actions that d.h.s. or congress could take to reduce the cost of government operations. yet of those 11 actions, only one has been fully addressed. take, for example, one example from the report, the g.a.o. found the arizona border surveillance technology plan is not accomplishing its goal to support arizona border security. the g.a.o. made three recommendations last year to the program and d.h.s. has not taken them into action. this year's g.a.o. report suggests congress should consider littling future funding to the program until d.h.s. can show they've a-- addressed the flaws and are
7:55 pm
able to work in conjunction with arizona border security. we can't continue to increase funding for a department that fails to deliver. if this department succeeded, why do we have 10 million to 15 million people in this country illegally? is this department making a debit in that number? will they makeless or more of a dent with 2%less funding? i think not. we can't continue to afford to throw money down the toilet trying to build virtual or real fences at the border that can't prevent crossing, hurting our own stalled economy, trying to police our way to restore the integrity of our laws. look, this country needs to address our broken immigration system. there are 10 million to 15 million people in this country illegally. the department of homeland security has failed. they have failed. are we going to reward failure
7:56 pm
by increasing their budget -- or are we going to reward failure -- or punish fail injury. they can't keep telling congress they need more money. every agency tells congress we immediate more money, that's why the country is in this mess. if my amendment pass, the bill would appropriate tens of millions of dollars to this department, enough to fund all activities and fund enhancements to anti-terrorist program bus it's imperative to the future of the country that we take real action to achieve fiscal responsibility. we can take that first step today. i join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in support of similar amendments in the past with regard to different appropriations bills. by reducing government spending in this bill. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. mr. chairman, i request --, mr. chairman how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 15 seconds remaining. mr. polis: i wreeled the final 15 seconds to my friend. >> i would say to my friend if
7:57 pm
you know where these programs are, cut the programs, not do an across the board cut. mr. polis: i urge support of the amendment and yield pack. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? mr. aderholt: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the secret is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: i rise in opposition because it would slash critical funding for our nation's homeland security for a third fiscal year in a row this bill that we have before us accomplishes a dual goal, that we have constantly worked on. fiscal discipline and necessary funding for homeland security needs of this country. the bill reduces the departmental management by $191 million or 17%. below the request. and $71 million below last year. it demands efficiency from all agency, including an overall reduction of the t.s.a. of $147 million or 3%. it cuts programs that are not performing, reduces
7:58 pm
bureaucratic overhead. the department is an agency of 230,000 employees with an absolutely critical federal mission. i would urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and i reserve -- i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the last word? mr. price: i move to sthike last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: our colleague from colorado is a persistent critic of the department of homeland security and i think often his criticisms have force. for example, his remarks a few moments ago on the unneeded so-called sanctuary cities amendment. this amendment, though, i believe, is an overreach. is indiscriminate. i do feel con trained to oppose it. it would reduce funding for every frontline agency within
7:59 pm
the dotcht homeland security by about 2%. the bill already includes a 1% reduction for the budget request and reflects the third year in a row that funding for the department of homeland security has decreased. i think this amendment would do damage to our security. this reduction -- if this reduction were adopted critical programs such as transportation security, border enforcement would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts throughout the bill. it would require the department to lay off crucial staff we hired over the last three years, include manager border patrol agents, c.b.p. officers at the ports of entry and many of those ports of entry are already backed up. i.c.e. investigators along the southwest border. coast guardsmen who work on environmental efforts such as oil spills this reduction would mean the department would need to abandon critical research and technology procunt

48 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on